It Comes in Threes

I confess to not know who Danny Gans was before he died (not a big Vegas fan) but I knew and very much enjoyed Dom Deloise.

Truth to tell, I though he had passed away a while ago, so it saddens me afresh. He seemed a very happy man who could communicate that happiness to his audience.

Who will be the third? Or did I miss the first?

Air Force One: A Financial Terrorist

Forget about the insensitivity and naivete of the new administration in buzzing the Statue of Liberty in Air Force One with an F-4 fighter dogging it's tail for a photo-op (after all, insensitivity and naivete are the hallmarks of President O-bow-to-Muslims). Rather, consider the phenomenal waste of taxpayer money instead.

I don't know the actual cost of flying Air Force One and an F-4 but it's in the hundreds of thousands at least. Contrast the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of photographs of AF1 and the Statue of Liberty and making a composite of them in Photoshop would take ten minutes for a semi-talented graphics designer (and the mega-buck photo-op disaster's photos would have to be retouched in Photoshop anyway) and you have a shameful boondoggle.

While I highly doubt BO had anything to do with it, the judgment of his staff is as woeful as his own.

10% down, 90% to go....

Sanctity of (a bug's) life

I'm not the most emotional of guys, but I don't like to kill things. I don't hunt or take potshots at squirrels. The one time I had to set mouse traps I felt guilty for weeks for murdering two rodents.

But I can kill bugs like popcorn. Spider? Smash it. Cockroach? Spray it. Mosquito? Mash it. All with glee.

Why is that? It's not because they're loathsome. I don't like rats or cats, but I wouldn't kill them if I didn't have to (no, I'm not killing cats).

Is it mammalism? Do I relate with mammals but not insects, so I can zap them? Is it cerebralism? An insects brain is the size of pollen, so they don't rate? Is it legism because two and four is fine but more is terminal?

I just don't know....

Pardon me while I geek out...

Batman Three

Which criminals should share the spotlight?

Here's who I don't want.

• Riddler (dumb character and even with reinvention would be a dumb character)
• Penguin (let's all say "yuck")
• Any overtly superpowered bad guys.
• Bane (yuck)
• Scarecrow (the first movie was great, scarecrow was sad)
• Harley Quinn (dumb)
• The Ventriloquist

Here's who I would be okay with.

• Poison Ivy (done well, unlike before)
• Black Mask (a little gross, but could the humor translate?)

Who I want.

• Catwoman (done right, who hasn't been done right yet)
• Batwoman (Kathy Kane without the perversion)
• Hugo Strange (Patrick Stewart!)
• Talia (maybe)
• Killer Crock (maybe)
• The Outsider (with a twist)
• MAN-BAT! (okay, he's superpowered, but come ON!)

The problem is Nolan's Batman works but I doubt even he could reinvent thin characters from the 60's and before to work in his Gotham. Joker and Two-Face were great, but they have some heavy psychological stuff to dig into. The rest don't except for those I've listed as "I wants."

Geek out concluded (unless you join me in comments).

Thinking about roads not taken

I've been contemplating this more for Lynette than myself, but isn't it amazing how your spouse changes everything about your life? That has to be the most life changing decision anyone can make. You merge your rhythms, goals, interests, activities, and dreams with your spouse. You don't just become "one flesh" you become DIFFERENT flesh.

I know I married well, but I'm not convinced Lynette did. She encourages me in all I aspire to. She has so much capacity, though, with art, music, compassion... how might someone else have influenced her? I'm glad no one else had the chance, mind you, but the malability of humanity is amazing.

I suppose divorce happens when one partner won't bend with the other. Don't know if that's the fault of the individual or the individuals make-up. Could it be that some couples who love each other simply can't merge together? I'm blessed to have the ideal wife, so I'll never know, thankfully.

Easter

Your opinions, please.

Easter is not a Biblical holiday (neither is Christmas, for that matter). While they commemorate Christian events, they are "tacked on" to tradition, not intrinsic to it.

Easter was actually a fairly big event when I was kid. We sometimes (maybe often) went to church and had a big family meal.

We don't so much, now. We go to church, of course, but we've never gotten into the secular stuff like egg hunts and roasting bunnies (or whatever you do with them). We do try to remember the Christian part, reflecting on Jesus' resurrection, but if memory serves (and it often doesn't), we don't do a special meal. Partly out of laziness, and partly because we have no extended family here.

Is Easter a big deal? Should Christians be compelled to observe it?

Does This Make Sense?

I like to wash my hands before I eat, especially at restaurants. So I give a good scrubbing with soap and water (I like the foam soap the best) and go to dry my hands. A "hand dryer" blowing out hot air with the hope of me being patient enough to wait for it to dry my hands hangs on the wall with some amorphous claim to be more environmentally friendly than paper towels.

Okay, paper towels are most often recycled paper, and even if not, trees are a renewable resource, right?

Air dryers, on the other hand are electric. Here in Florida, electricity is generated by burning coal, a non-renewable resource. Further, most people are like me and are impatient and annoyed by the lack of real drying power, so we end up wiping our hands on our jeans and walking off (defeating the purpose of clean hands). The dryer then continues to blow its preset cycle, raising the temperature and kicking the A/C into overdrive, burning more coal.

This is green how?

My Dogs Worship My Wife

The rest of us could go burn for all they care. As long as "Mom" is around, 100% of Grizzly's and Thunder's devotion is on her. As I type, Thunder is sprawled in her lap as she tries to read, and while Grizzly is beside me, he's staring at her waiting for his turn in her lap.

Hold on that for a moment and move over here where we can discuss "consciousness." What is it? What does it mean to be conscious or sentient? This is a big deal, because on Earth, though there are other intelligent animals, we are the sole possessors of consciousness. In the archives somewhere, you'll recall I mentioned the "consciousness explosion" that perplex scientists so. It seems 65,000 years ago (in their C speed erroneous thinking) our ancestors went from basic animal awareness to consciousness in an anthropological eye-blink. They have no idea how (from an evolutionary standpoint, it's a bad leap; consciousness breaks the chains of "survival of the fittest").

"Consciousness" is "self awareness" with "self direction" and "self gratification" and "self destruction" thrown into the mix. Animals survive. That's their one goal. They can play, but really, everything is geared toward survival. Their instincts drive them that way.

Instead of instinct, we have consciousness, and survival is the simply the springboard on which we achieve our true objective, self gratification. Or as David rightly said in his sermon, self worship. With an animal, it's all about survival; with people, it's all about "me" which often gets in the way of survival. We will kill ourselves in the pursuit of our pleasure.

Now we're back to the dogs and their worship of Lynette. When given a loving object, they worship OUTWARD. This is what Adam and Eve did. They had indwelling sin genetically written in their DNA but it was not expressed until a command not to eat from the tree of "consciousness" activated it. Paul tells us we need the law to show us the sin inside us. One law is apparently enough.

When they ate from it, all other people existed outside the garden also achieved consciousness (Adam is both a name and a word meaning "mankind." Whether or not he was the first man or just the first man created in the garden, he was the Platonic Archetype; what happens to him at a genetic template level happened to everyone - yes, yes, this is all speculation and not explicitly in the Bible... I take it from Paul saying "through Adam, sin (consciousness) entered the world." It could mean, and must also mean, that genetic sin is passed down from the father, not the mother, hence Jesus' sinless nature on Earth.)

From the Fall on, we each worship INWARD. Something about knowing right from wrong makes us dependant on ourselves rather than God.

This was part of God's plan from the beginning (as was our redemption through Jesus). We are to dominate the Earth, which we could not do as animals. Dominate doesn't just mean control, but also to optimize. Conservation, city building with Green principles, art (the real stuff -- maybe grist for another post), music, and all the things that go into "building" (math (ugg), engineering, science) are part of responsible dominion of the Earth. Stewardship is a huge part of dominion. Our takeover of the Indians was dominion at its worst, our rebuilding of cities wiped out by tornado is the good stuff.

There has never been a conscious human being without genetic (indwelling) sin, EXCEPT Jesus.

Jesus was not like Adam, and Adam was not like Jesus. When we enter His kingdom, we will not be like Adam OR Jesus. Unlike Adam, we will be conscious but without sin. Unlike Jesus, we will have an imperishable body. (I'm not really sure what Jesus has now, to be honest. Is He as He was at the transfiguration, or does He have another state of being different than optimized human?)

I can't imagine what that's like. Imperishable, sin-free, still conscious. As long as I'm covered by Jesus, though, I'll find out. :)

Silliness in the Pursuit of Political Correctness

It is so completely backwards to rename a people group because you don't want to refer to their color... even though you're still classifying them by their color.

Think about it; we all know African-American is a *wink-wink-nudge-nudge-he's-black," so what do you call a black person from somewhere else? Or the white guy from South Africa who immigrates here. Is he an African-American?

Native Americans--that throws me, because I was born here. I'm a Native American, by gum! No one calls me an Irish-American or a Scandinavian-American. And let's be honest here, Indians (an unfortunate name to be sure) didn't originate from America. They probably migrated across the Siberian land bridge. Why do we arbitrarily assign them to America? It wasn't even America when they controlled it! Native Pangeans? That would be all of us!

And really, isn't People Group-American racist? Doesn't that mean plain old American refers to a white person? You're still singling out black people as a "different kind of American."

Don't even get me started on Inuit Indians! They drop Eskimo (why? Didn't want to get confused with a pie? Is the Eskimo Pie now a racist dessert?) and they keep INDIAN? I mean, really, did Columbus get them confused with East Indians, too? Did that guy get around or did somebody miss the PC memo...

I think the only group who's got a decent claim are Asians. And maybe Latinos. What color are they, after all? If Asians are yellow, what does that make Latinos? Tea colored? And many black people are, in fact, high yellow which would make them sound loftier than Asians if we stuck to the color theme.

I've got an idea. What if we called all people who are American citizens "Americans" and forget about what color someone is? Either that or go all the way and individualize the color theme. I'd be Fish-Belly White With a Hint of Pink, Josiah would be Edging to Brownish But Maybe Just Almost-Olive, Former Senator Martinez would be Light Brown with Darkish Highlights, and the President would be Toast.

I could live with that.

Just talking through my hat

Since I can't follow the math and I'm really just intrigued by the concepts, this is more gentle musing than anything else.

You see, I'm fascinated by what people will believe so they DON'T have to believe in God. Let's move away from evolution and on to cosmology. How did God create the universe? Prevailing theory is a gravity-driven model (which, oddly, takes billions and billions of years). Super-simplified (because that's all I can handle) particles drift together in cosmic clumps with gravity as the principle actor. Clumps become planets and swirling galaxies (similar to water swirling down the drain... the cosmic drains are black holes, great gravity sinks so strong light doesn't escape).

There's only one problem. For galaxies to be moving the way they are, we're missing 90% of the mass required to fuel the gravity theory. So scientists, those wonderful empiricists, have made up dark matter and black holes. Great fields of stuff and pinpoints of hyper-dense mass that HAVE to be there... we just can't see it. Or detect it. Or figure out where it is....

But, see, if gravity didn't do it, how did it happen?

Perhaps... plasma? You see, when streams of plasma (ionized gas) which space if FULL of, cross just right, these straight plasma fibers... spiral. And within those spirals (which look suspiciously like spiral galaxies) they occasionally "pinch," accruing matter rapidly. We know this works with small plasma filaments; it's been proven in laboratories. Many scientists believe it doesn't ramp up to cosmic size, but if it did (and like I said, there is a lot of it in space), those pinches would become planets and suns. Rapidly.

Plasma. Non-scientists who see the ionized gas might call it "light" as in "let there be light."

Fascinating stuff. :)

I've Had it with Movies

...okay, I'll see Star Trek in two months, but really, Blockbuster is a wasteland of things worth seeing, and what's on in the theaters is just as bad. I saw Watchmen last night and regret it. I could go on about that, but why bother? So much stuff that just didn't need to be there. S'okay, that's not what this post is about.

It is a typical worldview these days that there must be no God because people are so evil. The "big joke" in Watchmen (not really a spoiler) is that people are barbarians underneath it all. Civilization is a thin veneer, and because people are such animals, God must be absent, uncaring, or bad Himself.

Ridiculous. The Bible is abundantly clear that men are evil to the core. That's the reason we need God. We were created to be in relationship with Him; it's the only way to stem our wicked hearts. Sure, we can reduce it by making all resources available to all people. Fulfill everyone's wants and you'll never see the horror we'll perpetrate to get what we want. That's the veneer that we of plenty live under.

So, if we need God for salvation, utopia on Earth will actually condemn us for eternity. Anything that drives us into the arms of God is used by Him as good. That puts a spin on movies, not to mention this wicked administration....

Respect to Paul Harvey, RIP

Paul Harvey, a unique and cherished voice on the radio, originator of "The Rest of the Story..." passed away this weekend. Nicknamed the "hardest working man in radio," Harvey reported the bad AND the good, and often the funny and just plain weird, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

I believe he may have been a major spur in goading my curiosity into a major trait. One of the first books I ever read was one of his "Rest of the Story" compilations. The stories don't always pass Snopes muster, but it was a strong encouragement to dig beneath headlines and find the people underneath.

His broadcasts have been guest hosted a lot lately, notably by his son and former Gov. Huckabee. When he did speak, the energy was there but the voice was failing.

May he enjoy broadcasting in paradise.

Since I've Been Studying Creation... (Heretic Warning)

More along the lines of the post a few back...

The Old Testament doesn't talk much about Native Americans. Or the Chinese, or a bunch of other people groups. Mainly because it is about God's Chosen People and only includes those with direct impact on same.

Which is to say Scripture is silent on say, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon, and such. Therefore it doesn't rule them out. For fellow creationists to discount Neander as a deformed human is silly. One doesn't have to accept speciation to accept the existence of critters fossils clearly say existed. Even evolutionists know Neanderthals aren't related to homo sapians. That cro-magnon was minorly different than us, far less so than, say, the Nephilum, takes no skin of creation's nose.

Even if one wants to believe a literal seven days of creation, there's no indication who long Adam and Eve were in the garden before eating the fruit. Long enough for cities to spring up outside the garden. Cain was afraid to be exiled because the people of the other cities would kill him. That means a couple things. 1) Cities existed and it couldn't have been the descendants of Adam and Eve populating them (not enough time). 2) Death existed there or Cain wouldn't have been worried they would kill him. Abel was likely not the first human to be murdered, he was the first of God's Chosen to be murdered.

Does this have any effect on God's creation (He made them, too)? Does it lessen the significance of Adam and Eve? No to both.

It's important to recognize that scripture's silence doesn't mean there's nothing there. The Bible rules out certain things (such as random mutation being the cause of speciation) but unless it speaks directly to something, it doesn't rule out its existence, just it's relevance.

Research Project for Eager Beavers

Why is the speed of light considered a constant (never changing)?

Church Got My Heart Beating This Morning

Great sermon, too. But what really got things going was a friend leaning over my chair saying, "did you hear about M&M? Their Hummer's totaled!"

THUMPA_THUMPA_THUMPA! Hummer's don't GET totaled, they do the totalling!

"Yeah," they continued, "Rear-ended at a stoplight by a guy going 100MPH. They're in the hospital."

And that's when David started church. NOOOOOOOOOO!

Y'all know they're okay, though they'll be immensely sore tomorrow.

Then God tapped my on the shoulder and raised an eyebrow. Yeah, I get it. I've always been amused by the Hummer. What vehicle more says "Mike" than that military boat? Now I am SO grateful for it. Any other car and we'd be visiting M&M at the morgue. God so knows best.

I like to think I've never taken them for granted; it's always a pleasure to hear their voices, never more so than when M-ette's phone voice was chipper and a joke was the first thing out of her mouth (not a good one, but the effort is appreciated).

I am awed by God. Not even Hummers are designed to go from zero to 50 in .5 seconds. Praise Him also for airbags, given a certain someone's habit of not buckling up. I admit to shudders and cold chills when I think of what could have happened...

Shot Through With Sin

On the New Earth in our resurrected bodies, we will be without sin and at the peak of our DNA potential. I have no idea what that will look like. A sinful grub, I can't imagine perfection as a state of mind, spirit, or body.

Evolutionists believe our DNA is repleat with "junk code." I don't believe so. First, I don't think new information evolves in DNA but that it is complete in itself. That junk code is unactivated, unexpressed, and unrealized. When it's switched on, maybe all of it, we'll be who we are meant to be.

The week before I proposed, I gave Lynette a stuffed Panda. What she didn't know was that her engagement ring was inside (and let me tell you, if I'd known the stress I'd undergo in that week hoping she didn't find it, I probably wouldn't have done it). For Lynette it was just a Panda with some sort of weird hard lump inside. I knew it was far more.

I think we're like that. Who will you be on the New Earth?

The History of the World

A question from my cousin-in-law prompts this explanation of my personal understanding of the world timeline.

In the pre-beginning, God created the planet and populated it in a phased approach with dinosaurs. They romped happily for a long time, eating each other, and making eggs. I do not believe they evolved in a speciation kind of way, but I'm sure environmental adaptation occurred.

Then the asteroid struck what would one day become the Yucatan. Dirt, ash, and stuff choked the atmosphere, killing off the remaining dinosaurs. Leaving the Earth void and without form.

Long time passes and the KT barrier is formed. The planet was dark and the atmosphere began to thin, and then there was LIGHT. This corresponded roughly with the Cambrian period where all existing body forms were created by the Lord.

He then set apart in this growing wilderness the Garden of Eden, and he created Adam as a special creation within the garden as well as people outside the garden. Eve was created as were more people outside the garden. How long both sets of people partied before Eve ate from the tree, I don't know, but when she did, the consciousness explosion took place and A, E, and other people outside became aware of right and wrong, attaining accountability in a stroke. Cities sprang up and A&E had C&A and many others once they were cast out of the garden. Their children became the elect. Things went on from there.

Biblically, "void" means something once was and now was not (dinos). From the pre-beginning, God's plan included a strife torn Middle East. Over what? Territory and OIL. Where do we get oil? Fossil remains of dinosaurs. They were part of His plan from the beginning.

Science points out the Cambrian explosion where suddenly all the body forms existed within ten thousand years (give or take). Evolution can not explain this, Creation can.

Science also speaks of a consciousness explosion where hominids became sentient, aware of themselves and of right and wrong. (Evolution doesn't explain this... sentience is actually a negative survival trait... The Fall does explain it).

Cain speaks of being afraid of the peoples of the other cities killing him not long after expulsion from the Garden. Cities (perhaps Clans) co-existed with the Garden of Eden.

I do not believe in speciation; evolution speaks of random mutations and since we don't see random mutations ever being positive (they are instead cancer), I believe God specifically created each animal. Are there changes within species? Yes. It is a turnkey system that does not require randomness. With the need for extended periods of time that evolution requires, I except the idea of an old Earth but not billions of years old. I have no problem with the Fall being 10,000 years ago, but I do believe the world pre-existed for thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands or more (it is unknowable) before the Garden.

I further believe that this does not contradict anything from the Bible. A right understanding of the Bible and a right understanding of Science will always coincide. I don't think we have a right understanding of either yet (closer with the Bible than Science), but that they can work together for discovery.

Believe it... or not....

Swans of War

New template from a site the kids told me about.

Why Mars? Planet of War? Dunno, it looks cool. :)

Take Me Out to the Ball Game

I heard on the radio today that Obama is the "Jackie Robinson of Politics."

I think Jackie would be horrified (okay, probably not, but I am).

Robinson became the first black baseball major league because he was a fantastic ball player.

Obama became the first black president because he's black. (Although I had a marvelously confusing moment with an Hispanic acquaintance when he said "Obama is not a frickin' American!" It took me awhile to figure out he was saying, with his PR accent, "Obama is not African American." But I digress).

I have no doubt that Martin Luther King would be thrilled we have a black president, but this election was as racist as they come. Obama won because:

A) He's black (or, as Jimmy says, part black).

B) He ran against McCain, whom Gary Coleman could beat for the same reason Obama did (see reason A).

To his credit, we are one step closer to a true non-racist election (and it might be in four years when Obama will have to run on his record...)

(Have I already posted this comment or am I having Deja Vu?)

Wo to you creative people looking for employment

Paul Newman's movie "The Color of Money" about pool sharking has the most salient comment for creative people looking for jobs. The exchange goes something like this:

"He's a flake!"
"Yeah, the question is, can he flake on and flake off at will?"

Creative people are flakes (almost by definition). I know this from past experience and acutely from the last week where I'm hoping to hire business writers. We placed an ad on Monster and we've gotten over a hundred responses. That is, hundreds of resumes from writers... the most torturous kind.

You see, earlier in the week I had the privilege to review Matt's resume for costume design. It has a woman in armor in the left eighth of the page. For his target audience, that's right on. It's eye catching, shows his talent and assures he will not be forgotten.

The writing resumes, however, were clear for a target audience of business writing. I can forgive the various clip art on the cover letters... there's a difference between flat ignorance; no, I'm talking about things that should be common sense. For example:

* Endless purple prose - four pages of resume digging into their heart of hearts as to why they want to be, or are, writers. "I think it was a fairy or a muse camping in my heart and typing fingers..." ugg.

* Scary e-mails. bathedinblood -at-killer.com or sweatychick-at-myplace.com

* Links to their personal (not business) websites detailing their obsessions in aberrant interests.

* Links to their personal blogs where they talk about how they want to kill their former employer for not recognizing their genius.

I admit, we writers are hopelessly self-possessed; but doesn't logic dictate that if you apply at a professional business you should conduct yourself professionally and just think a little bit about what you include?